Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

This human's life, decoded

CAROLYN ABRAHAM

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 9:04 PM EDT 03/09/07

The full DNA sequence of one healthy middle-aged man shows mind-boggling array of genetic quirks, burps and hiccups ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Mark Peters from NS, writes: And yet people actually believe all this complexity just evolved from non-living matter.
  2. billy bob from Timmins, Canada writes: No bright lines to divide races only means that the information isn't great enough to do so yet.When they examined Einstein's brain it was determined that it was indistinguishable from an ordinary one.Hardly a plausable conclusion but only later was it discovered that he had a very thick and dense corpus callosum.Likewise today all people and chimpanzees are 99% identical.A computer program with a million lines of code may be identical with another except for even one line and the resultant output can be very different.
  3. Kevin Dooley from Canada writes: Mark Peters, yes, that's exactly what we believe. Complex and highly organized systems appear all the time in nature, particularly when they are able to reduce their net energy by increasing the complexity. Crystals, for example, can be extremely complex and organized because it is energetically favourable to organize this way. Similarly with organic molecules - it can be energetically favourable to string together large numbers of simpler molecules. They can even reach the point where, through random variations, individual molecules are able to produce replicas of themselves - no intelligence required, just enough time and variation to produce something that reproduces itself. And once you have that, the whole process starts to take off. Soon you've got single cell organisms and then interesting adaptations like photosynthesis appear, completely at random. And because these adaptations are so extremely useful, the organisms that have them are able to multiply at crazy rates. Yes, it's not only believable, when you think about it, it's hard to believe anything else.
  4. S. Forrest from Hamilton, ON, Canada writes: Mark Peters: yes, yes we do. And all of the biologists who are responsible for obtaining this result do too. What makes you think you know any different?

    More to the point: with all the ID folks out there arguing for 'inherent complexity': just what level of complexity is too much for you folks? This complexity evolved starting from approximately 3.7 billion years ago. That's 3700000000 years. That's really, really long, enough for a lot to happen.

    Do you have any idea how long that is? Put it another way: if you could magically drive through space, and you were able to drive from here to Alpha Centauri (4.37 light-years from here), how slow would you have to be going for it to take 3.7 billion years?

    The answer is 1.03 kilometers per year. That's pretty darn slow.
  5. Michael H from Edmonton, Canada writes: Further to the points above, the article actually highlights the evidence for evolution at work--processes that introduce variation in the genome. Moreover, if the genome was simply a string of highly refined proteins optimally designed for their function, it would be quite remarkable for a randomly-driven process. Instead, the genome is littered with the debris of previous retroviral infections, genes that no longer function, etc...

    The second point that I would like to make is to address the conspiracy theorists on 'cures for cancer'. As Venter points out, we have an enormous amount to learn (and he's primarily referring to just the sequence). The size of the problem is vast and the comparative investment in the problem of human has been exceedingly modest. Every time something like this is completed, we learn things that we never expected to find. This is one reason why Harper's attack on the basic research that generates these findings and his attempt to transform Canadian research into a strictly applied research program is so incredibly short-sighted. It is a recipe to leave us lagging far behind in science and technology. Canadians need to appreciate that Canadian research has been shown by several international studies to consistently 'punch above its weight'. It is something to be proud of. The first CPC budget initiated a crisis in Canadian health research and the second one was the first step in this shortsighted transformation. Under Harper, this is on a downward spiral and bucking the trend of both developed and developing nations who recognize this type of investment as paving the road to prosperity.
  6. wddfwf dsffgeg from Toronto, Canada writes: Hmmmm, Mark ... far more plausible, I suppose, that it was 'created' by some entity of obviously even far greater complexity that ... just ... uh ... was there ... uh ... like ... forever. I BELIEVE!!!
  7. Colin C from Calgary, Canada writes: Umm, S. Forrest - your math is off by a factor of about 10,000 (not that you don't make a point), but it's more like 11,173 km per year. 300,000 Km/sec 86,400 sec/day 1595 days / 3.7E9. This is about 1.27 km/hr - perhaps that's what you meant.

    However, I'm still skeptical that genetic differences are purely due to insertions and deletions of a random nature. Without good comparitive data of exhaustive nature, we may be well off on this too. I'm guessing that we'll find that DNA is far more complex than we assumed it is and perhaps even more adaptive of its own accord without random events. More to come I'm sure as we explore life.
  8. Jorly fuster from Canada writes: Yeah you could make medicine.....or weapons.
  9. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: And yet people actually believe all this complexity just came about from non-living matter, according to the terms of this or that religious fairy tale . . . ! HA HA !
  10. Michael H from Edmonton, Canada writes: Colin C, I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at but perhaps this partially addresses what you are speaking about. Insertions, deletions, and some base changes are primarily introduced through errors in the processing and duplication of DNA that is inherent in the enzymes that perform these functions. For example, one of the reasons why HIV has a high rate of adaptability is because its duplication machinery is prone to introducing errors (reverse transcriptase). Moreover, there are other aspects that move these processes away from introducing changes purely at random. Many of these events are biased by DNA sequence/structure and/or sequence-related differences in the packaging of DNA. For example, there exist so-called fragile sites within chromosomes that have a much higher probability of breaking than the 'average' region of the genome. The packaging can also influence the probability of damage from seemingly random processes, such as chemical insults or damage through radiation. To say that the entire process is random in the strictest sense of the word can already be said to be an oversimplification.
  11. Marv M from Canada writes: 'Mark Peters'

    Anytime you hint at 'creationism' all of the 'My Phd and vocabulary is larger than your Phd and vocabulary' types come flooding onto the message boards. Canada is one of the worst for this I have found.
  12. Nathan Cool from Toronto, Canada writes: 'Canada is one of the worst for this I have found.'

    You read the message boards for scientific articles in the world's newspapers often then I guess?
  13. Michael H from Edmonton, Canada writes: Marv M, there is also no shortage of anti-intellectualism that would have us believe that having a Ph.D. is a bad thing. I agree that there is no point in being rude or insulting. However, challenging people's beliefs and trying to engage in rational arguments is certainly appropriate. False arguments like we can't explain the evolution of human beings through entirely natural mechanisms need to be challenged. Among other things, they ignore what we have learned recently about complex systems and self-organization. These are exciting discoveries.

    Saying how something CAN happen does nothing to prove that it DID happen that way. We can never know with certainty the answer to that question. However, I think that you have this whole process backwards. It is not appropriate to teach something like Creationism to children in our public school system. It cannot be tested and reflects nothing more than an opinion. In a multicultural society, moreover, it reflects one specific set of values and beliefs that are not consistent with that of others. For example, the Catholic Church takes the position that evolution is the way that man arrived on this Earth.

    Evolution, on the other hand, is more than a theory. It can be tested and demonstrated in a laboratory. It is a real mechanism and children need to learn about it as part of their science curriculum. Guided evolution, or ID, is again something that cannot be tested and therefore is not an appropriate part of a science curriculum. There are places to discuss these types of ideas, such as religion classes or history classes, but they cannot be discussed as science, because they are not science.

    I think that, on this matter, the Catholic Church lights the way. It is possible to be a devoutly religious Christian and still not be threatened by science or evolution. To Be Continued...
  14. Mark Shore from Ottawa, Canada writes: 'the human genome has now shrugged off its reputation for being perhaps the world's most boring and predictable molecule' and 'maps suggested that humans were 99.9 per cent genetically identical'. It's remarkable how wrong experts can be when they try to make quick conclusions and punchy remarks based on incomplete data. But that's one of the self-correcting strengths of science, its mills grind quickly AND exceedingly fine...
  15. Kevin Dooley from Canada writes: Not only is creationism bad science, as Michael H points out, that should not be taught as science, it is also bad religion. Creationist take one narrow (and highly disputed) theological interpretation and hold it up as being so completely and unquestionably correct that all of the vast body of physical observations that clearly contradict it must be wrong. This body of observations is not, however, the work of man, as the creationist mistakenly believe. The scientific observations are in fact the direct observations of the works of God. So dismissing them is dismissing the very Hand of God in favour of a very human theological opinion. This is heresy. So I think we need a counter-movement in which we demand through the courts that any time creationism is taught in schools as an alternative to evolution, it must be pointed out that while evolution is just a theory (like gravity, or number theory), creationism is heresy.
  16. Michael H from Edmonton, Canada writes: It is, and has always been, segments of the religious communities that have tried to pick this fight. The mistake made by Mark Peters and, more generally, the Evangelical Christian community in its recent attempts to attack evolution is that they attempt to use a scientific argument to do this. The scientific argument, in this case, isn't sound and scientists have a responsibility as part of their roles as educators, to criticize these arguments.

    Your 'my Ph.D. vocabulary' bit is offensive. These discussions provide an opportunity to educate. If there is something that you can't understand because of the language, please ask for clarification. Academic scientists have an obligation to educate the public when given the opportunity. This is one such opportunity. An important component of education is effective communication. If there is something that you don't understand, please point it out and it will be explained to you.

    Again, to end my comment, I want to reiterate that I don't think that it is appropriate or acceptable to belittle somebody because they have made a statement out of ignorance. I also don't believe that anyone should be insulted or attacked for their religious beliefs as long as there is no attempt to impose that belief system on the rest of society. Religious activism can be considered a threat to human rights in this country (as it has been in Afghanistan, for example). That threat needs to be countered. The best way to 'spread the faith' or 'save a soul' is through good actions and good deeds. If you focus on the positives of religious teachings and become a living example of it, others will take notice and interest. If you use faith as a force of oppression, others will only see religion as a threat and an embodiment of evil. Exactly the opposite of what religion is intended to project.

    I'm requesting that those who want to argue in favor of science here show respect and keep the insults to themselves.
  17. Lalo Lad from Toronto, Canada writes: All this phylosophical critique of the article is interesting; however, I recently read in The Economist that RNA and microRNA in particular may play a very fundamental role beyond that of a simple carrier or messenger and its function may be as important if not more than that of DNA and plenty of reasons are given but can't ellaborate here. I wonder if there are any scientists who can provide some input at a non-scientific level.
  18. Angry West Coast Canuck from Canada writes: SCIENCE: hypothesis - test - independent verification - theory - retest - repeat.

    'Intelligent design' isn't science. It is at most a hypothesis for which no testing can be done. Anyone saying different is either lying, or just mistaken and doesn't understand science. Evolution is science, and has been confirmed through countless experiments.

    What they are doing here is science. They had a hypothesis. They decoded the human genome. They found the hypothesis was flawed, but the results agreed with other theories. They will lather, rinse and repeat forever, extending human knowledge. Meanwhile, the bleatings of the religious loonies will hopefully simply get more strident as they are relegated to the same history box as those who tried to shut up Copernicus or Darwin.
  19. pudge canuck from TO, Canada writes: Face it. We don't know where we came from or how. Not yet, maybe.
    But for the 'believers' out there, we are here and we are there. Why? No body knows for sure. No body. So stop telling me why I exist!!!! Who said that?
  20. Etienne Forest from Geneva, Japan writes: billy bob: Exactly. Tiny differences in the DNA can result in enormous changes. Otherwise we would look like chimps. So I am pretty certain that racial differences (race being of course hard to define precisely but more than just a social construct) are contained in the DNA. I marvel for example at the fact that European Jews constitute 2-3% of the USA population and yet grab 22% of its Nobel prizes. Perhaps 1000 years of persecutiion forcing them AWAY from jobs for dummies, have had some benificial effect on their average DNA. After all if all you are allowed to do is sell alcohol and lend money, you are not gonna marry a moron who can only get a job as the local street sweeper. The analogy with a computer program is excellent. One line of code can destroy the efficiency of a 1,00,000 line program. For example an useless allocation and deallocation of memory inside a program can slow it down considerably. Furthermore if one forgets to deallocate (one line of code), the program can run out of memory and slow your computer to a halt. So one must wonder how the slightest genetic mutation if carried by a group of people (called them a race for lack of a better world) cannot indeed produce a huge advantage. So I do not believe that we are at the end of the evolutionary tree. The Nazis were correct on that one despite their crimes. We can still improve. PS There is a tribe in Malaysia or Indonesia (forgot) where every one is a fisherman. They fish by diving. Their eyes see under water like fish do instead of the blurred vision of normal humans. Obviously they got this through some mutation which they preserved. How could we blame these people for being racist? They intermarry with other groups and they lose it all.
  21. Marv M from Canada writes: Michael,

    I posted a long message but it is not making it to the board. I've posted it twice now since your last message but for some reason it seems to be getting screened?

    I do apologize though if I came across a little strong on the 'Intellectual Snobbery' bit.
  22. Cyrus Ofpersia from Canada writes: Michael H, I always appreciate your studied and measured contributions in these posts. One question, though. You assert that evolution has been demonstrated in the lab. Certainly adaptation has been demonstrated millions of times. But has actual transformation from a given species to a new species been demonstrated in the lab? If so, what were the original and new species?
  23. Michael H from Edmonton, Canada writes: Lalo Lad, I think that you are referring to important regulatory roles that very small RNAs and more recently, emerging non-coding large RNAs. These RNAs work through two mechanisms. They can be directly involved in the regulation of gene activity (determine whether or not an RNA that codes for a protein is made) or they can work at levels after the messenger RNA (protein-coding RNA) is made (stimulate the destruction of the RNA or prevent the protein-constructing machinery from reading the RNA and translating it into a working protein). Changes in the expression of these regulatory RNAs appears to be deregulated in at least some human cancers. Because these RNAs often regulate the same types of proteins that have already been found to have a critical role in the genesis of human cancers, understanding them is one of the 'hot' areas of cancer research right now. We only learned of the existence of these RNAs over the past 5 or so years.
  24. Michael H from Edmonton, Canada writes: Marv M, perhaps I was guilty of overinterpreting what you were saying as well. No worries. I don't think that it is necessary for either side of this debate to take an attacking tone so I appreciate your reply.

    Cyrus Ofpersia, thanks. Actually, I seem to recall that something was demonstrated recently in the wild but I am not aware of anything in the laboratory. What has been recently done in the laboratory is to take an entire genome and transplant it into a different type of bacterium and show that you can change that bacterium into the species coded for by the transplanted genome.
  25. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: There are many types of Intelligent Design: . . . Hindu Intelligent Design, Shinto Intelligent Design, Muslim Intelligent Design, various forms of Christian Intelligent Design (2 versions of 'Creation' in the Book of Genesis, after all), Navajo Intelligent Design, Zulu Intelligent Design . . . .
  26. El Magnifico Lord Cross of Blackharbour from Maggot Creek, Arriviste Avenida de Bayview, Canada writes: Have the scientists isolated the Shopping Chromosome? Apparently males do fall one short. :)
  27. Nathan Weatherdon from Canada writes: Lalo - think of this analogy: the DNA spits out a mould for a protein (let's call it a house). the RNA can 'decide' to cut out certain parts of the design (say, the extra bathroom or the chimney). the membrane of the nucleus might 'decide' not to let it through (a manager scrapped the project). If the plan gets through that stage, there are still some chances to scrap the project otside the nucleus (the 'market conditions' weren't right to build profitably) or take out more pieces of the RNA (might decide the porch was too big). Taking out even a small pece can significantly change the structure, and therefore the function, of the protein... but I wouldn't say I understand that part well enough to avoid the jargon I had to learn in class.

    The short of the long is that a single gene can results in one, two, or even dozens (maybe more) different kinds of proteins with different functions being produced, in each with some degree of random-ness, but overall depending on the conditions inside a cell, sometimes in response to stimulus from outside the cell.
  28. Nathan Weatherdon from Canada writes:
    about the article...
    I think one relevant thing to add is that many of the differences in the DNA are likely in unused parts of DNA. I wouldn't be surprised if 99.9% would be a rather conservative estimate of the number of ACTIVE genes that are similar. However, given the stronger capacity of some genes to act, in comparison to others, it's a little like taking a basket of currencies and fogetting to do the exchange before counting you money. The % difference in DNA is not an accurate representation whatsoever of the % difference in gene expression. haha... that nearly exhausts what I've got to say. I'm sure my biology prof could lecture on about this for hours (and surely will unless he/she plans to lose their job). More to say about this in 8 months time.
  29. AlienNation iswhatweare from Calgary, Canada writes: While i am a proponent for science, i understand that there are certain limitations to what science can understand or wants to understand. In this case the physical aspect of the human being can be determined but that still leaves the non-physical aspects to be understood. To dismiss some idea of ID is short-sighted in my humble opinion. What that ID is?... we can only guess and not know for sure until we check out of this world. I'm firm in my belief that i am a spiritual being that has chosen to have a human experience to evolve spiritually and this body is just a vessel for my soul to experience this particular dimension, the 3rd dimension. The DNA in my body contains the 'blueprint' to what my life will entail, the way i look, the way i act, when i will fall in love and when i have heart-break along with every other aspect. Micheal H - Great stuff, i always look forward to reading your post. With that said i refer to one of my favorite scientist Mr. Nikola Tesla 'the day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade then all previous centuries of its existence'
  30. Nathan Weatherdon from Canada writes: Marv M - I didn't really follow the 'my Phd vs your Phd comment at first.' Just in case you're curious, anyone who couldn't digest this board would definitely fail 2nd year cellular biology. I should know, 'cause I didn't do much better than pass it and this stuff here is basics (including Micheal's comments, although I'm sure he cold also go on about it for a good while too). After a year out of school the next round should be lots of fun.
  31. AlienNation iswhatweare from Calgary, Canada writes: Just testing a theory about the whole paragraph thing. Anybody have any ideas on why a post sometimes gets squished together?
  32. Colin C from Calgary, Canada writes: Michael H - I think I agree that the insertions and deletions may not be as random as thought. Someone mentioned above that the DNA sequence contains a lot of leftover junk from the evolutionary process (I couldn't find the comment, but that's the gist of it). I think DNA will surprise us tremendously with the complexity that we find in it. For example, to think that all domesticated dogs basically come from domesticated wolves (or some common ancestor thereabouts as is usually maintained) seems to imply that there is a tremendous amount of 'unused' variability in DNA itself that can manifest in appropriate circumstances (through 'chance', circumstances or by manipulation / breeding). Perhaps what we think is junk in our extremely limited knowledge is far more vital than we imagined, it is just unexpressed in the circumstances that we have examined.
  33. Austin So from Canada writes: Interesting and intelligent discussions going on here (Kevin Dooley, Michael H etc...)...shame that this can't occur in all facets outside of science, eh? No real comment on the results (I don't find them at all surprising), but it is clear that the genome as we know it is a dictionary with pages missing, scribblings and doodles on the margins, typos, and scratched out words. It does suggest a stronger role of epigenetics IMHO. But 'evolution' as a 'science'? I don't think it was invoked in the article, and I'm not so convinced...maybe I'm very narrow in my definition. What metrics are there in this science? People seem to think that we can know what 'fittest' means in an absolute sense, when really that definition is entirely predicated by the conditions at a given moment of time and space. When it comes right down to it, the fossil record is largely a record of things that were not 'fit' and met an untimely end. Now whether one calls that moving force - that 'prime mover' - 'entropy' or 'God'...I ain't gonna argue 'faith' :)...
  34. James Cyr from Balmertown, Canada writes: It appears that the building blocks of a human have indeed been decoded, but not the individual's life!
  35. Simon Garth from istanbul, Turkey writes: What I know for sure is that I lack at least one line of code that some of us apparently do have, which should be about the author: God has preferred not to place a copyright info notice in me, perhaps I am but a pirate copy of human produced by evil scientists.
  36. Brad Reddekopp from Hazelton, Canada writes: Cyrus Ofpersia, go here for examples of observed speciation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
  37. Jeff Gulley from Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic, Canada writes: Mark Peters: I think that people believe that the origin of 'all this complexity' is certainly a lot more complex than, say, having breath blown into a body created from dust.
  38. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: The limits of religious belief are the limits of the human imagination.

    And why religious people choose to try to 'disprove evolution' by pretending to scientific methodology (see above posts on the same topic) is a mystery. In doing so, they are clearly (to use a swimming term) 'out of their depth'.
  39. billy bob from Timmins, Canada writes: Nice post mr justice.Once in a while someone says something truly insightful in my opinion and your's about religious people adopting the scientific method to prove their point is one.I've read of a creationist museum in the states and one in canada as well where they show humans and dinosaurs together.I wonder what the odds of it's creator making any advances in genetics are.Not all religious people however try to defend their opinions by reason but some do so through force and intimidation.So how will the truth fare when confronted by brute force and fanaticism.Society does'nt necesarily have a ratchet.
  40. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: I differ with some folks; I DO think that religious people have the right to 'push their views on the rest of us' . . . sans violence and intimidation, obviously (the same restrictions as bind everyone else). After all, they have the same rights as everyone else to say what they want. . . . And any religious person who tries to engage ME in a discussion regrets that decision in a very few minutes; typically, when they find that I don't put up with their tactics of (1) changing the subject, (2) lying, (3) refusing to answer any questions I have, and (4) ad hominem attacks . . . they just slither away; you see . . . they find that having a discussion with me doesn't go along with the little scripts they've memorized and . . . is just NO FUN.
  41. r b from Calgary, Canada writes: Golly - one post by a 'layman' brings out the pseudo-scientific snobs.

    Don't worry Mark Peters, all of the great minds posting with such vehement certainty here are just as clueless as you (or I) about the ultimate question - where did it all begin.

    While I am certainly no creationist, or 'intelligent design-ist', my few years in the ivory tower of academia did at least teach me one important aspect of science that is often overlooked - humility in the face of the infinite.

    So good luck with your faith Mark Peters, in the end you are no further away, or closer, to the ultimate truth than all of the really, really smart people who have piled on you here.
  42. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: Mark: Remember . . . 'ultimate truth' is whatever you WANT it to be; GREAT, eh ? Yup, pretty nifty.

    If persons more learned than you confound you with 'facts' and 'rational arguments' and 'intelligent questions,' you can just claim that you are . . . 'awed by the infinite' or some such; remember: it helps at that moment to glance wistfully into the sky, as if you -- and only 'the few' -- have been given the grace to 'understand' all of this.
  43. Peter Bud from Canada writes: hey r b, that is a great post.

    Follow r b he (she) is the messiah!
  44. Glen T from Winnipeg, Canada writes: I'm with Mark. It's called faith and to some it means something. All of you 'intelligent' people dismiss it because you don't have it, don't understand it or are simply afraid of it. There's no reason to be rude to people who don't think the same as you. Get off the pedestal.
  45. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: Glen T: . . . Thanks so much for illustrating my point.

    BTW, which version of 'faith' do you like the best and which version of 'God' do you favour ? And why ? Oh, and why are you so rude to people who disagree with you ?

    Thanks so much.
  46. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: Oh, the questions I put to Glen T is open to everyone else, too:

    Which version of 'faith' do you like the best and which version of 'God' do you favour ? And why ?
  47. Glen T from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Wasn't being rude. was just expressing my opinion, like you. I have not illustrated your point, merely an alternative way of thinking. What I believe in or who I believe is is irrelevant.

    Grace and faith aren't tied to each other exclusively. It is possible to have grace without faith. Your comments that I have read are condescending to put it mildly, and YOU illustrate the point that obviously not everyone has grace.

    There is no reason here for us to argue, just merely accept the fact that we don't believe the same things and not look down on the other for what they believe. I'm not trying to convert you. I have the right to post my opinion on the matter much like you do.
  48. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: Glen T: . . . Your comments that I have read are condescending to put it mildly. If you need to convince yourself that YOU have been given 'grace,' then . . . FINE.

    As I have made clear, anyone has the right to post whatever he/she/it wants, has the right to pretend that he/she/it gets instructions from 'God', is specially 'gifted', has 'the truth', whatever else. And if you want to believe that I -- for some reason -- don't have 'grace' (however it suits your fancy to define same), go ahead, be my guest.

    You decline to answer my questions; this is your choice; too bad you are unable or unwilling to defend your own religious beliefs, but that is your choice.

    EVERYONE has the right to pretend that he/she/it gets instructions form 'God,' has the only religious views that are 'true,' etc. I certainly recognize that you have this right, and nothing that I have said challenges that.

    My advice: Leave facts to those who are prepared to deal with them; you perhaps would do well to restrict yourself to the fantasy world of religion; just a suggestion.
  49. Glen T from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Ok, Mr Justice. I hear ya.

    My apologies if I have offended or angered you in any way. That was not my intention.

    Take care
  50. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: Glen T: Ditto.
  51. M K from Ottawa, Canada writes: Of course it's important to remember that we can be a product of both creationism AND evolution? What if a monolith from a civilization so advanced it is difficult to fathom within our reference fell when we were just australopithecines and coaxed sentience from us. Arthur C. Clarke put it better than me. Of course without an artifact of sorts it would be just as hypothetical as intelligent design.

    The answer is aliens people. Aliens.
  52. Harper is Da Man? from Canada writes: Amazuing to see how people get so aggravated over religion. How about you guys give Mark Peters a break, ok? You guys are so eager to pile on anyone who doesn't see things your way...Bunch of Cyber-bullies is what you are...You should be ashamed.
  53. Ramesh Fernando from Canada writes: Glen T as usual the religious fruitcakeslike you walk out of the closet and spout claptrap about faith blah blah and grace. Well science and religion are two different things. You can have faith and still believe in evolution. Kenneth Miller at Brown University has an excellent book for you 'Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution' ISBN-10: 0060930497 ISBN-13: 978-0060930493. I strongly advise you to read that book before blabbling about faith and evolution.
  54. Sue Hickey from Grand Falls-Windsor, Canada writes: For sensible people of faith, evolution is the how, the Creator is the why (think Teilhard de Chardin!). And as for the term 'Theory' generally in the sciences a theory is the structure of 'how' something works. Einstein's Theory of Relativity - both special and general - have been proven. We know that time slows for objects the faster they go. We know that life evolves. Look at Darwin's finches. We KNOW that there is a 'Theory' of Gravity - and a skydiver can tell you he feels the reality of gravity. So there.
    As for tolerance on the message boards, I hope the poster 'CyrusofPersia' lives up to his or her moniker. The real Cyrus the Great was known for being one of the most tolerant of ancient rulers when it came to different belief systems. The pagan Cyrus even returned the Jews to Israel - if that ruler of 2500 years ago could be so tolerant of the different ways people think, hopefully we can extend that tolerance to the message board posters.
  55. Rob Misek from Canada writes: I agree that, as a science, evolution needs to be taught in schools.

    Right alongside the roles that homosexuals and abortionists have in it.
  56. Lupa Nare from Canada writes: Harper is Da Man: Mark wasn't given a break because he made an assertion that is open to refutation. This is a scientific article - why not allow for scientific debate, albeit some of the posts could have been a bit more civil.

    As for those who are bigoted and bullying, try announcing yourself as an atheist. We're not well-liked, frequently the subject of bigotry and in the US, about half of Americans wouldn't elect us for public office because we do not embrace the supernatural.

    Venter's project helps push science back into the mainstream. Science clears the cobwebs of superstition. It demands remarkable evidence when remarkable claims are made. A fearsome anti-intellectualism creeps across the land and we atheists have to combat it with science and reason. And we will call on the religious to explain themselves. You've had a free ride for too long.
  57. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    There is room enough in all science for the hypothesis of God. Science can never prove God does not exist. Therefore, everyone is free to believe, and it is impossible to convince anyone not to believe with science.
  58. Harper is Da Man? from Canada writes: Lupa...Do you really think you're making things any better with those statements? What free ride? What explanation is required? I think you take this stuff a little too personally. The reason atheism will never be adopted over 'the big guy in the sky' theory is that people WANT to believe that there's something else aside from the hellish ride called life. They want to believe there's more than 'game over'. Is there such a thing? I don't know, nor does anyone else. You can't prove it doesn't exist and nobody can prove it does.
  59. Harper is Da Man? from Canada writes: Lupa...Do you really think you're making things any better with those statements? What free ride? What explanation is required? I think you take this stuff a little too personally. The reason atheism will never be adopted over 'the big guy in the sky' theory is that people WANT to believe that there's something else aside from the hellish ride called life. They want to believe there's more than 'game over'. Is there such a thing? I don't know, nor does anyone else. You can't prove it doesn't exist and nobody can prove it does.
  60. Jake The Snake from Canada writes: Allright, who woke Misek up? There goes the neighbourhood.

    Evolution is not a 'theory' it is proven. Natural selection is the theory that proposes how evolution could occur.

    Back to sleep Misek. Sweet dreams.
  61. E M from Canada writes: It is very interesting to note that this 60 year old, who therefore has already lived through his working years, completely ignores the problems created with people trying to obtain a job, insurance, etc. based on genetic information.
    Example (of which there are many):
    http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/features/townandgown/story.html?id=54b9c869-eb00-4b6d-b5b9-ba2fa8a33f1e
    Just the latest example in controlling citizens, etc. How about this?:
    Ready for your MANDATORY tracking chip implant? Probably with your genetic diseases encoded?
    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-scan31aug31,0,2715647.story
  62. Montezuma 2004 from Canada writes: Mark Peters do you understand the complexity of the Universe in general. Have you looked at General Relativity, Quantum Physics. The Universe is remarkably self-organizing and very complex. Organisms are a product of that.
  63. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    I agree that evolution is a proven theory. But I've always been troubled by one thing.

    Exactly what was it in the experience of our ancestors in evolution that forced them to develop the intellectual genius to split the atom or travel to the moon, or write, or indeed merely appreciate, the operas of Mozart or the symphonies of Beethoven?

    Why was it that the evolution of such fantastic genius was necessary for their survival?

    Survival of the fittest I understand. But the abilities of the human mind go far, far, far beyond what could possibly be considered 'necessary for survival.'

    Room there for God, I say. Not proof, but room for the possibility.
  64. Montezuma 2004 from Canada writes: Rob Misek, do you realize that homosexuality is present in many species of animals?

    I hate to quote Wikipedia when there are science journals with articles on this topic, but...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexualityinanimals
  65. d a from United Kingdom writes: Glen T 'I'm with Mark. It's called faith and to some it means something. All of you 'intelligent' people dismiss it because you don't have it, don't understand it or are simply afraid of it. There's no reason to be rude to people who don't think the same as you. Get off the pedestal.'

    I think the problem stems from people trying to link religion and science. Religious belief seeks truth through faith and not fact whereas science seeks truth through fact and not faith. Often intuition plays a role in science but theories need to be tested. Scientists find the continual efforts of certain religious sects to enforce their faith into science very tiring. It generally fails .. e.g., Galileo vs Catholic church. I don't agree with anyone attacking anyone's beliefs .. I think thats rude - unfortunately the rude comments come from both sides.

    Science is science and faith is faith .. they don't meet and should never be compared. How you interpret how the genetic code evolved .. be it purely random or guided by some unknown force .. is up to the individual. The results of the theory of evolution should be of little relevance to the religious doctrine (except those who take the bible literally ... those who take snipits that work for them and their cause) - its just explaining the facts. However, the meaning of evolution can be discussed.

    Teaching creationism or intelligent design in science classes, in my opinion, is wrong. If one were to teach ID in science than wouldn't there be an argument for teaching evolution in religion classes?
  66. Ian Brown from Royal City, Canada writes: Since when is 60 'middle-aged'?
  67. Montezuma 2004 from Canada writes: I would like the religious folks who have issues with Science, to just do without Science for a while. Forget the doctor, the car, the TV, you modern home ... go live in the forest for a while.
  68. Jake The Snake from Canada writes: Voice of Reason from Canada writes:'Survival of the fittest I understand. But the abilities of the human mind go far, far, far beyond what could possibly be considered 'necessary for survival.'

    =======================

    Are you sure about that statement about 'far, far, far beyond'. Think about today, the modern world we find ourselves in, the current problems that need to be solved in order for us to carry on and ask yourself have we really gone, 'far, far, far, beyond what could possibly be considered necessary for survival'.
  69. Philosopher King from Ottawa, Canada writes: We can swat and spit at each other all we like, but the simple fact is that science and religion do not need to contradict each other. One asks how, the other asks why. The answer to these two questions may not be the same.

    Even the Catholic church teaches theistic evolution in its seminaries. You have to get up pretty early in the morning to be more behind the times than the Catholic church.
  70. Rob Misek from Canada writes: Montezumas revenge,

    What's your point, that aberrant behaviour exists? No duh.

    I can't speak for animals, but people do make mistakes, are hypocrites, are criminals, and somehow still survive to reproduce at least for one more generation.

    Truth drives evolution, but animal survival trumps intelligence.

    Welcome to the human condition.
  71. carol c from Canada writes: I find it very interesting how science brings up questions of faith, and of course homosexuality gets in the mix somehow.

    Philosopher King makes an excellent point about the different questions of why and how. Probably we won't have answers to these questions in our lifetimes, but people do have answers for themselves. Most of the strife comes when we try to convince or force others to view things as we do which is a little ridiculous as everyone's life experience is different. We like to pretend we know because the unknown is too scary.
  72. W M from Canada writes: Etienne Forest. Why am I not surprised that you have taken the racial superiority tack. There are many reasons why certain groups might do well at a given time. Our brains and bodies are far more maleable than previously thought, including the visual centres of the brain. For example, any one who lives in high mountains will see an increase in lung capacity and red cell count. Or, if you wear a pair of glasses that invert everything, your brain will turn everything right side up again after a few days (you don't have evolved from a race of people who wear upside down glasses). Or, differences could be cultural. If intelligence is more important in one culture than another, then maybe it simply makes people more willing to sacrifice everything to achieve an academic goal. If you went to university, you may have noticed that it wasn't necessarilly the biggest brains who went on to get phds. Desire was at least as important (Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick co-discovered DNA with an IQ of 120 - not far above 'normal'). And, even if culture makes it more likely that intelligent people will marry each other; will that raise the intelligence of the race, or just certain people in the race? And IQ is not fixed. It is well know to vary depending on health, schooling, etc. Taiwan filed almost no patents 50 years ago, but now files the most per capita. Has there been a sudden burst of natural selection in the last 50 years? And what is the utility of your insight? Even if one group produces more of certain types of achievement (for a time), it would be foolish to use that as the basis for selecting among individuals. Would you have cut Hank Greenberg from the Detroit Tigers, because your racial analysis 'reveals' that Jews have not evolved to excel at baseball (Greenberg was one of the greatest hitters of all time)? Or, perhaps nuclear physicist Nils Bohr should have been directed into seafaring, the calling for which Norwiegens have evolved.
  73. Vince Porter from Canada writes: The dialog of the deaf! As long as science cannot resolve completely the complexities of life, the god delusionists will take every scrap of the unexplained to shout, 'See, it defies all your knowledge. God is the answer'. You cannot pry open a closed mind with reason or a crowbar. As their very own book says, 'There are none as deaf as those who will not hear...'
  74. Darren X from Toronto, Canada writes: The chain of reasoning for ID proceeds thus: 1. That's really complicated, where did it come from? 2. That's too complicated to have come from chance, it MUST have been designed. 3. An Intelligent Designer is the explanation! Hooray!

    The vast, glaring problem with this line of reasoning is that it actually explains nothing, it simply replaces something improbable (origin of DNA) with something even more improbable (origin of the 'intelligent designer').
  75. Jake The Snake from Canada writes: Philosopher King from Ottawa, Canada writes:'One asks how, the other asks why.'

    =====================

    Ah, but the one that asks 'why?' also has an answer to 'how?' and the one that asks 'how?' also has the answer to 'why?'. And the two extremes will always be in conflict because of it. Surprisingly, in this case. the catholic church has found the middle ground.
  76. Not right or left from Canada writes: To the people who thinks God created everything, Where did God come from? Intelligent design makes no sense whatsoever because who was the intelligent designer who created God?
  77. Alex Ling from Toronto, Canada writes: Not that I think the editors read every comment, but this article is riddled with inaccuracies. First off, Mr. Venter's genome was sequenced, not decoded. Secondly, his genome was compared to publicly available databases of DNA sequences, not DNA maps-- this nitpicking makes more sense if one has a background in genetics. The meat of the article is not bad for an average understanding of this work, but then again Dr. Scherer and his colleagues did NOT discover new types of variations, that is, copy number variation (CNV) and insertions and deletions (INDEL). They are well known in genetics. Skimming the actual article, one of the results was that while single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) constituted 78% of the mutations (in line with expectations), the other 22% of the mutations which include CNVs and INDELs were more significant in terms of absolute base pairs changed. By analogy, a dozen people may buy apples at the supermarket but still in total buy less apples than a person who buys a whole bushel.

    There are a whole lot more imprecisions, misinterpretations, and other mistakes in the article worth mentioning, but I think it's clear that the G&M needs to invest in some science expertise to edit and vet their science articles, especially in light of giving an interview with evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa in the weekend's Focus section. Anyone asserting without evidence that men prefer blondes deserves censure because they clearly do not understand evolutionary theory.
  78. Philosopher King from Ottawa, Canada writes: These science articles do seem to bring up an inordinate amount of theistic comments. I don't mind that myself since I'm very much into theology, but I do wonder if this doesn't point out a large void in our modern society. It seems to me that in many ways sprituality has stopped developing in any meaningful way for some time now.

    I respect the right of people to 'believe as they wish' but have considerable trouble accepting the stagnation that accompanies the loudest proponents of this. There is a significant difference between superstition and the pursuit of universal ideals or the embodiment of spirit.

    Faith and superstition are contrary to one another. One abandons the illusion of control, while the other attempts to appease unknown/volatile forces.

    The resulting mentality is notably different.
  79. carol c from Canada writes: Not right or left, what was there before the 'big bang'? Evolution makes no sense if it all evolved out of nothing.

    I'm simply making the point that neither science nor theology have everything explained. It should fill us with wonder.
  80. Emperor Joshua Norton from Toronto, Canada writes: Darren X - actually the problem with intelligent design is that it is self-contradictory. As it is exists now, ID believes that God created everything, but also believes that God has to continually interfere with that creation. This means that according to ID that God's creation is flawed - that HE must constantly correct HIS mistakes. Ergo, God is flawed - a concept that is pretty much blasphemous to all religions. Unless, you consider that most of the evidence of ID is in microorganisms that cause disease in humans. In light of that, ID, therefore, argues that humans are not the end-product of God's creation, that we are paving the way for something else to come and that, while God did create mankind, HE prefers humans to suffer. This, while a lot more depressing, seems to fit with the God of the Old Testament. Personally, I prefer the belief that ID is crap. My God is really smart and thought up this plane of existence (ie the universe) over the course of six days. On the sixth day, HIS thought and will were joined - creating the point singularity that gave rise to the Big Bang and creating everything (including evolution). There are rules applied to this universe that God created - and therefore HE cannot break them because that would make HIM a hypocrite.
  81. Jeff Gulley from Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic, Canada writes: Carol C: The book Maya, by Jostein Gaarder would be a good read for you. 'At some point, every person must accept one of two impossibilities: either something came from nothing, or something has always been here'. Pretty baffling really, fascinating, and as many people ponder here, it's probably some kind of freaky combination of the two, which is even more impossible!
  82. Paul F. from ON, Canada writes: Nothing begets nothing - so where does that leave evolution? In the garbage dump of man's attempts to make himself god.
  83. carol c from Canada writes: Thanks for the reccomendation Mr. Gulley it sounds fascinating. I'll put it on the nightstand next to A Brief History of Time which my non-scientific brain is slowly working through. :)
  84. Philosopher King from Ottawa, Canada writes: While I will concede there is some natural overlap between religion and science, this only becomes problematic when one insists that something meaningful to you must also be meaningful to me.

    Besides this, I would argue that there are clearly defined theories in theology that science could not have any part in discerning and vice versa. This is how we know and why we can say that they are not exactly the same thing.
  85. Jake The Snake from Canada writes: carol c from Canada writes:'Not right or left, what was